The Root Idea of Communism and Liberalism By J.R. Nyquist 12.04.01

[kabud]

The Root Idea of Communism and Liberalism
By J.R. Nyquist 12.04.01
http://web.archive.org/web/20020419170654/www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/dec/04/nyquist.htm
Richard Pipes of Harvard has written an elegant little book on the
History of communism. It is simply titled "Communism: A History."
Pipes does a beautiful job of bringing out the history of communist
thought, which extends back to antiquity. Perhaps the most intriguing
passage in the book is where he writes about the root idea behind
communism and liberalism.

This root idea has to do with man's nature.

The ancients believed that character was formed at birth. For example,
the Greek writer Plutarch, in his famous parallel lives of the noble
Greeks and Romans, attempted to show that character determines fate.
His method was to put the biographies of famous men side by side. One
would be Roman, the other would be Greek, but both would share a
similar character and a similar fate.

The Christians, whose moral views differed from the ancient pagans,
held that man was created with innate ideas - values implanted from
birth. "This was a conservative notion," explains Pipes, "since it
posited the immutability of human nature; such as it was, such it
would always be."

Christians believe that notions of right and wrong are planted in the
human soul by God. We know when we have transgressed. We are therefore
responsible for our actions, and accountable to God. "This premise,"
writes Pipes, "was first challenged by the English philosopher John
Locke, who in his Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690) denied
the existence of 'innate ideas.'" (Ideas implanted by God from birth.)

It was Locke's argument that man is born without any definite
character or God-given ideas. According to Locke man's mind starts out
as a blank slate. As the individual develops, this blank slate is
filled with sensory experiences. "This theory implies that human
nature is malleable rather than constant," explains Pipes, "and hence
that people can be shaped in such a manner that their natural goodness
- which the philosophers took for granted - would prevail over
selfishness."

The political consequences of this view are striking, and Pipes is
quite correct in making it out. French Enlightenment thinkers like
Claude-Adrien Helvetius realized the implications and proposed an
ambitious social project. Helvetius argued that with the right kind of
education and legislation mankind could be perfected. Virtuous men
could be created, as it were, by a scientific formula.

Pipes goes on to say: "This highly questionable psychological theory
became the common heritage of liberalism, socialism, and communism,
which in varying degrees rely on instruction and/or coercion to
achieve their respective objectives."

And what did the liberals, socialists and communists accomplish with
this "questionable theory?" Does modern education or socialization
make men virtuous? Does modern legislation make them noble?

While modern education has brought literacy to the masses, it has not
eradicated human viciousness or meanness. It has not made us wise or
good. One might say that the communist experiment in Soviet Russia,
while attempting to eradicate the evils of the past, created far
greater evils in their place. Author Mikhail Heller's "Cogs in the
Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man" documents the helplessness of the
Soviet educational machine to form a new, virtuous type of human
being. The experiment in reshaping human nature, taken to its logical
conclusion, produces catastrophe.

Looking at American education and legislation, one sees a similar
failure. One might say that America has adopted a Soviet educational
model. Liberal educators, operating under the theory that they can
reshape human nature, have given us collapsing standards and
disciplinary neglect. Our legal system is also collapsing as the crime
rate has ballooned since the 19th century. Whatever the truth about
human nature, man is not a blank slate on which liberal social
engineers can write whatever they please. While the Soviet Union used
brutality and secret police methods to force its educational ideas on
country after country, America voluntarily gives over its children to
the grand liberal-communist experiment.

One day we are going to have to admit the reasons for the failure of
our educational system. The purpose of an educational system should
not be to remake man in the liberal image. It should be to offer
knowledge (especially self knowledge), which is not only the
foundation for wisdom but the basis for great literature and the final
object of history.

Liberal readers should not misunderstand my objection to their creed.
I am not worried that human nature will be reshaped. What worries me
is the incredible waste of time and effort. What worries me is the
confusion that is produced by a system that tells people they can
achieve peace on earth and plenty for all; that virtue is a matter of
education, and that rehabilitation is preferable to punishment.

In an age of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction, can we afford such dangerous notions, which leave man
without an accurate idea of his own nature?

I think not.